CIVIL LAW

REVIEW REPORT

Personal Injury

By: Rexell V. Tupas

 PERSONAL INJURY/
PERSONAL INJURY LAW

Personal injury/ law refers to the legal remedies and

defences involved in civil lawsuits brought as a result of
wrongful conduct. In fact, the word “tort” comes from a
Latin term meaning twist, wrong, or harm. In contrast
to criminal law, a tort action does not involve the
government prosecuting the wrongdoer. Rather, these
cases involve a private plaintiff seeking compensation
(usually money) for the harm caused by the defendant’s
actions.
 PERSONAL INJURY/
PERSONAL INJURY LAW

Most personal injury cases are based on the doctrine of

negligence. In essence, negligence requires every
member of society to act responsibly and avoid putting
others at risk. That is not to say that negligence will
result each time someone gets hurt. The doctrine
recognizes that some accidents are unavoidable. To
establish liability, the plaintiff must show that a
reasonably prudent person in the defendant’s position
would have acted differently under the circumstances.
 PERSONAL INJURY/
PERSONAL INJURY LAW

Once negligence has been established in a personal

injury case, the defendant must pay the plaintiff for all
injuries caused by the defendant’s actions. Certain types
of damages are easy to calculate, such as property
damage and medical bills. For other types, such as
emotional distress and loss of earning capacity, expert
testimony may be required. Punitive damages, meant to
punish and deter particularly egregious conduct, may
also be available.
 PERSONAL INJURY/
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Art. 2199, NCC - Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled
to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as
he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.

Art. 2200, NCC - Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the
value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed
to obtain.

Art. 2201 NCC - In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the
obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties
have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be
responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-
performance of the obligation. (1107a)
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
CASE

Gatchalian v. Delim, 203

SCRA 126
 FACTS:
• July 11,1973: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded Thames" mini bus at Aringay,
La Union bound for Bauang, of the same province. The bus bumped a
cement flower pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle
and fell into a ditch.

• Gatchalian got injured with physical injuries on the leg, arm and forehead.

• Mrs. Adela Delim visited the passenger and later paid for their
hospitalization and medical expenses. She also gave transportation
expense of P12 in going home from the hospital and they were made to
sign a Joint Affidavit stating that they are no longer interested to file a
complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver and owner of the said
Thames.
 TORTS AND DAMAGES
CASE
• Gatchalian filed in the CFI an action extra contractu to recover
compensatory and moral damages stating that the mishap had left her with
a conspicuous white scar measuring 1 by 1/2 inches on the forehead,
generating mental suffering and an inferiority complex on her part

• as a result, she had to retire in seclusion and stay away from her friends

• scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for
employment

• Delim averred that it was a fortuitous event

• CFI: dismissed because of the Joint Affidavit

• CA: affirmed
 ISSUE

W/N Gatchalian is entitled to

damages
 HELD:

• YES. CA, CFI REVERSED and SET ASIDE 1)

P15,000 actual or compensatory damages to cover
the cost of plastic surgery for the removal of the scar
on petitioner's forehead; 2) P30,000 moral damages;
and 3) P1,000 attorney's fees, the aggregate amount
to bear interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum
counting from the promulgation of this decision
until full payment thereof.
 HELD:

• A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be

couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt
as to the intention of a person to give up a right or benefit
which legally pertains to him.
• while reading the same, she experienced dizziness but that,
seeing the other passengers who had also suffered injuries sign
the document, she too signed without bothering to read the Joint
Affidavit in its entirety. Considering these circumstances there
appears substantial doubt whether petitioner understood fully
the import of the Joint Affidavit
 HELD:
• To uphold a supposed waiver of any right to claim damages by an
injured passenger, under circumstances like those exhibited in this case,
would be to dilute and weaken the standard of extraordinary diligence
exacted by the law from common carriers and hence to render that
standard unenforceable.
• A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body; if
that integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for
which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable.
Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in
the condition that she was before the mishap.
• A scar, especially one on the face of the woman, resulting from the
infliction of injury upon her, is a violation of bodily integrity, giving
raise to a legitimate claim for restoration to her conditio ante. If the
scar is relatively small and does not grievously disfigure the victim,
the cost of surgery may be expected to be correspondingly modest.
 PERSONAL INJURY/
PERSONAL INJURY LAW

Sps. Renato Ong v. CA, G.R. No.

117103, Jan. 21, 1999
 FACTS

• On February 9, 1987, petitioners boarded as paying passengers

Bus No. 101 with Plate No. EVB-508 ("Inland bus," for
convenience), which was owned and operated by Inland
Trailways under a Lease Agreement with Philtranco. It was
driven by Calvin Coronel.

• Around 3:50 in the morning of said date, when the Inland bus
slowed down to avoid a stalled cargo truck in Tiaong, Quezon,
it was bumped from the rear by another bus, owned and
operated by Philtranco and driven by Apolinar Miralles.
 FACTS

Francia sustained wounds and fractures in both of her legs and

her right arm, while Renato suffered injuries on his left chest,
right knee, right arm and left eye. They were brought to the San
Pablo City District Hospital for treatment and were confined
there from February 9 to 18, 1987.

Petitioners filed an action for damages against Philtranco and

Inland. In their Complaint, they alleged that they suffered injuries,
preventing Francia from operating a sari-sari store at Las Piña's,
Metro Manila, where she derived a daily income of P200; and
Renato from continuing his work as an overseas contract worker
(pipe welder) with a monthly salary of $690.
 FACTS

Stating that they incurred P10,000 as medical and miscellaneous

expenses, they also claimed moral damages of P500,000 each,
exemplary and corrective damages of P500,000 each, and
compensatory damages of P500,000 each plus 35 percent thereof
as attorney's fees.

Philtranco filed a cross claim against Inland alleging that it was

merely Inland’s lessee for BUS #1, while Inland claimed that the
driver of BUS #2 was at fault and actually fled the accident scene.
Both respondents then moved to submit the case for decision
without presenting further evidence.
 FACTS

RTC: Inland absolved and Philtranco is liable based on Police

Report and passenger affidavits to which Philtranco did not
object to.

CA: Police Report has not been formally offered in evidence (it
was merely annexed to Inland’s anser), so Philtranco cannot be
made liable on something that has no probative value. Inland,
however is liable based on common carrier breach of contract.
 ISSUE

Did CA err in disallowing the P50k award to

Grancia for the diminution of the use of her
right arm and the P48k of unrealized
income?
 HELD
NO. Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an
injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he
had been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or
losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement.

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to

adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has
duly proven. To be recoverable, actual damages must be
pleaded and proven in Court. In no instance may the trial judge
award more than those so pleaded and proven. Damages cannot
be presumed.
 HELD

On Physical Injury
However, physical injury, like loss or diminution of use of an
arm or a limb, is NOT a pecuniary loss. Indeed, it is nor
susceptible of exact monetary estimation. Thus, the usual practice
is to award MORAL damages for physical injuries sustained.
Hence, the award of moral damages to Francia was increased
from P30k to P50k.
Note: There was no expert testimony presented to grand her costs
for restorative operation on her arm.
 HELD

On Unrealized Income
The bare and unsubstantiated assertion of Francia that she
usually earned P200 a day from her market stall is not the best
evidence to prove her claim of unrealized income for the eight-
month period that her arm was in plaster cast.
She could have returned so her work at the public market despite
the plaster cast on her right arm, since she claimed to have two
nieces as helpers.
Clearly, the appellate court was correct in deleting the award for
unrealized income, because of petitioner's utter failure to
substantiate her claim.
 HELD

On Reduction AF
Payable to the client and not to the lawyer unless
otherwise agreed upon.
The lawyer’s handling of the case was in fact sorely
inadequate as shown by his failure to follow elementary
norms of civil procedure and evidence.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH

Historically, a tortfeasor was better off killing his victim

than injuring him ( Better to kill than to injure), as a
dead victim's family would be entitled to a lesser civil
remedy for his loss. However, today, the country has a
stronger statute attaching civil liability for wrongful
death or by providing that personal injury claims
"survive" the death of the decedent.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH

The damages prior to death will go to the decedent's

estate and be subject to claims of creditors of the estate.
Anything left over will go to the beneficiaries of the
decedent's will (if he or she had one) or the decedent's
heirs at law. Damages after death will go to the
decedent's survivors (usually the decedent's immediate
family) who may not necessarily be the beneficiaries of
any will.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH

ARTICLE. 2202, NCC- In crimes and quasi-delicts, the

defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the
natural and probable consequences of the act or
omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably
been foreseen by the defendant.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH

ART. 2206, NCC - The amount of damages for death caused

by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand
pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:

(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be
paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in
every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless
the deceased on account of permanent physical
disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning
capacity at the time of his death;
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to
the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir
called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from the person
causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the
exact duration to be fixed by the court;

(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and

ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH

As harsh as it may seem to put a price on the life of a loved one,

there is unfortunately no means other than money that a
negligent company or individual (or their insurance company) can
use to compensate bereaved families.

When a wrongful death claim determines what the life of a victim

is valued at, it weighs factors such as lifespan, employment, and
family responsibilities. A younger person reasonably can be
expected to have lived for a longer period of time than an elderly
person, had the accident not occurred, so families of victims in
young and middle adulthood may recover more money.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH

Compensation for lost future income will be higher for

an individual who worked a high-paying job rather than
a low-paying job, since that individual’s family is
presumably losing out on more wages than an individual
who earned less. Victims with dependents, such as
spouses or children, may also have higher-value claims.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
DEATH

People v. Tolentino, 546 SCRA 671

(2008)
 FACTS
• On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder
and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the
RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad
and Arnel Trinidad.
• The murder case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-0258
while the two frustrated murder cases were docketed as
Criminal Cases No. 98-0260 and No. 98-0270.
• The RTC appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance in
the killing of Josita Novelo (Criminal Case No. 98-0258) and
in the stabbing of Antonio Bea (Criminal Case No. 98-0260).
In the killing of Josita Novelo, the victim was at her home
when someone called her. When the victim went outside,
suddenly Jesus Trinidad held her.
 FACTS
• Thereafter, Jesus Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad mauled Josita
Novelo. Without warning, Jesus Trinidad shot the helpless
victim on the cheek.

• Said attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had
not been given the opportunity to defend herself or repel the
aggression. She was unarmed when she was attacked. Indeed,
all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the victim
was treacherous.
 FACTS
• The stabbing of Antonio Bea was also attended with treachery.
While Bea, whose hands were tied behind his back, and the
assailants were walking along the dike, Emelio Tolentino
unexpectedly stabbed the victim four times. The victim could
not put up a defense as the attack was swift and he was not in
the position to repel the same since his hands were tied.

• The RTC also appreciated the presence of the generic

aggravating circumstance of dwelling in Criminal Case No. 98-
0258. Evidence shows that Josita Novelo was killed in her own
house. Dwelling, however, was not appreciated in Criminal
Case No. 98-0260 considering that the same was not alleged in
the information.
 ISSUE

Whether or not award for damages granted

by the RTC is proper?
 HELD
• YES. In Criminal Case No. 98-0258, it must be borne in
mind that the prosecution successfully established the presence
of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of
Josita Novelo. With this, the crime committed by the
appellants is murder under Article 285 of the RPC. With the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling and no mitigating
circumstance, the penalty imposed should be in its maximum,
which is death.
• As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the
following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the
death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3)
moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.
 HELD

• The RTC also correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of

P50,000.00 in view of the violent death of the victim. This does not
require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs.
Article 2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be
imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances, as in this case. To deter future similar transgressions, the
Court finds that an award of P25,000.00 for exemplary damages is proper.
•
• As to the award of actual damages, the prosecution failed to present any
receipt to substantiate Antonio Bea’s hospitalization expenses.
Nonetheless, in light of the fact that Antonio was actually hospitalized and
operated upon, this Court deems it prudent to award P20,000.00 as
temperate damages since it cannot be denied that he suffered pecuniary
loss. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 is in order.
 DAMAGES IN CASE OF
INJURY

People v. Mediado, G.R. no. 169871, Feb. 2,

2011
 FACTS
Jimmy Llorin (Jimmy), the victim, was having a conversation with
Rodolfo Mediado (Rodolfo) at around9:00 am on March 20, 1997
at the dancing hall in Camarines Sur. At that moment, Jose
Mediado (Jose)emerge from behind Jimmy and hack him twice in
the head
with a bolo. The victim’s wife believed that
Jose had attacked the victim for fear that he would report to the
authorities that Jose had attacked oneVicente Parañal during the
town fiesta two days earlier.Jose confessed to killing Jimmy but
claimed self-defense and defense of a relative. The accused
related
when he passed by the barangay hall, Jimmy punch and hit the
former’s father (Rodolfo) with a stone.
 FACTS

The victim allegedly threw a stone at the accused and to fend off
the attack, Jose then unsheathed hisbolo and hacked Jimmy until
he fell to the ground and that he remained in the place for
10 minutes andlater yielded to Clorado who accompanied him to
the police station.B

Both the RTC and the CA rejected Jose’s claim of self

-defense and defense of a relative, and found thattreachery was
employed by Jose when he attacked Jimmy from behind.
 ISSUE

Whether or not the court erred in finding

him guilty of murder and failing to
appreciate the justifying circumstance of
self-defense
 HELD

No. The court affirmed the decision of the CA

to reject Jose’s claim of self-defense and defense
of a relative because he did not substantiate it
with clear and convincing proof. Having admitted
the killing required him to rely on the strength of
his own evidence, not on the weakness of the
Prosecution’s evidence.
 HELD

It is also notable that unlawful aggression is the condition sine

qua non for the justifying circumstances of self-defense and
defense of a relative. There can be no self-defense unless the
victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who
resorted to self-defense.

He did not establish with clear and convincing proof that Jimmy
had assaulted him or his father as to pose to either of them an
imminent threat of great harm before he mounted his own attack
on Jimmy.
 HELD

The nature, number, and gravity of Jimmy’s wounds spoke not of

defense on the part of Jose but of a criminal intent to kill Jimmy.
They indicated beyond doubt the treacherous manner of the
assault, that is, that Jose thereby ensured that the killing would be
without risk and would deny to Jimmy any opportunity to defend
himself.

We modify the award of damages to make their amounts

consistent with the law and jurisprudence relating to an accused
adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No.
7659,[regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. [
 HELD

The correct amounts are P75,000.00 as civil

indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, all to be granted without proof or
pleading. In addition, the Court notes that actual damages
awarded to the heirs was only P24,000.00.

In furtherance of justice and consistent with our ruling in People v.

Villanueva that when actual damages proven by receipts is lower
than P25,000.00, the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages
is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount.
 ATTORNEYS FEES

Under the Civil Code, an award of attorney’s fees is an indemnity

for damages ordered by a court to be paid by the losing party to
the prevailing party, based on any of the cases authorized by law.

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be

reasonable. It is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless
the two have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as
additional compensation or as part thereof. The Court has
established a set of standards in fixing the amount of attorney’s
fees.
 ATTORNEYS FEES

Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of

litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the
plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing
to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim
 ATTORNEYS FEES

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers
and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and
employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a
crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be
reasonable.
 ATTORNEYS FEES

(1) The amount and character of the services rendered;

(2) labor, time and trouble involved;
(3) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the
services were rendered;
(4) the responsibility imposed;
(5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the
controversy or involved in the employment;
(6) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services;
(7) the professional character and social standing of the attorney;
(8) the results secured, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly
charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not.
 ATTORNEYS FEES

Interest, Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v.

CA,
G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234
SCRA 78;
 FACTS

Two fiber drums were shipped owned by Eastern Shipping from

Japan. The shipment as insured with a marine policy. Upon arrival
in Manila unto the custody of metro Port Service, which excepted
to one drum, said to be in bad order and which damage was
unknown the Mercantile Insurance Company.

Allied Brokerage Corporation received the shipment from Metro,

one drum opened and without seal. Allied delivered the shipment
to the consignee’s warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum
which contained spillages while the rest of the contents was
adulterated/fake.
 FACTS

As consequence of the loss, the insurance company paid the

consignee, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action
of consignee against the defendants Eastern Shipping, Metro
Port and Allied Brokerage. The insurance company filed before
the trial court.

The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff an ordered defendants

to pay the former with present legal interest of 12% per annum
from the date of the filing of the complaint. On appeal by
defendants, the appellate court denied the same and affirmed in
toto the decision of the trial court.
 ISSUE

(1) Whether the applicable rate of legal interest

is 12% or 6%.

(2) Whether the payment of legal interest on the

award for loss or damage is to be computed from
the time the complaint is filed from the date the
decision appealed from is rendered.
 HELD

(1) The Court held that the legal interest is 6% computed

from the decision of the court a quo. When an obligation, not
constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an
interest on the amount of damaes awarded may be imposed at the
discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.

No interest shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages

except when or until the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty.
 HELD

When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money

becomes final and executor, the rate of legal interest shall be 12%
per annum from such finality until satisfaction, this interim period
being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of
money.

The interest due shall be 12% PA to be computed fro default, J or

EJD.
 HELD
(2) From the date the judgment is made. Where the demand is
established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to
run from the time the claim is made judicially or EJ but when
such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the
demand is made, the interest shll begin to run only from the date
of judgment of the court is made.

(3) The Court held that it should be computed from the decision
rendered by the court a quo.